Comparative Analysis of Long-term Success Rates and Patient Satisfaction among Different Implant Placement Techniques for Implant-Supported Restorations: A Prospective Clinical Trial
Objective: This prospective clinical trial aimed to rigorously investigate and compare the long-term success rates of implant-supported restorations using various implant placement techniques, including conventional two-stage implant placement, immediate implant placement, and guided implant surgery...
Saved in:
Main Authors: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
2024-12-01
|
Series: | Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_707_24 |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
_version_ | 1841544119471570944 |
---|---|
author | Akash Mithran Vishal B. Parmar Malav Sheth Mansi Soumalya Banerjee Minu Raju |
author_facet | Akash Mithran Vishal B. Parmar Malav Sheth Mansi Soumalya Banerjee Minu Raju |
author_sort | Akash Mithran |
collection | DOAJ |
description | Objective:
This prospective clinical trial aimed to rigorously investigate and compare the long-term success rates of implant-supported restorations using various implant placement techniques, including conventional two-stage implant placement, immediate implant placement, and guided implant surgery.
Methods:
A total of 168 participants were randomly assigned to three groups. Comprehensive preoperative assessments, involving detailed medical and dental histories, thorough clinical examinations, and cone-beam computed tomography scans, were conducted. The implant placement techniques included conventional two-stage, immediate placement, and guided surgery. Primary outcomes included clinical and radiographic implant success, while secondary outcomes encompassed prosthetic success, complication rates, and patient-reported outcomes.
Results:
Baseline characteristics demonstrated no significant differences among the groups. Implant success rates at 6, 12, and 24 months were consistently high, with no statistically significant differences between conventional two-stage (96.4%, 94.0%, and 91.1%, respectively), immediate placement (94.7%, 92.1%, and 88.5%, respectively), and guided surgery (98.2%, 96.4%, and 93.8%, respectively) techniques (P > 0.05). Prosthetic complications, including crown misfit, abutment screw loosening, and esthetic issues, exhibited comparable rates across groups (P > 0.05). Patient satisfaction scores remained consistently high at 6, 12, and 24 months, with no statistically significant differences between conventional two-stage (8.2 ± 1.1, 8.5 ± 0.9, and 8.8 ± 0.8, respectively), immediate placement (8.4 ± 1.0, 8.8 ± 0.8, and 9.1 ± 0.7, respectively), and guided surgery (8.7 ± 0.9, 9.0 ± 0.7, and 9.3 ± 0.6, respectively) techniques (P > 0.05).
Conclusion:
This study provides robust evidence supporting the comparable success rates, low prosthetic complications, and high patient satisfaction associated with conventional two-stage, immediate placement, and guided surgery techniques for implant-supported restorations. |
format | Article |
id | doaj-art-2bffc48810724bb5aec90216afb49521 |
institution | Kabale University |
issn | 0976-4879 0975-7406 |
language | English |
publishDate | 2024-12-01 |
publisher | Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications |
record_format | Article |
series | Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences |
spelling | doaj-art-2bffc48810724bb5aec90216afb495212025-01-12T14:11:22ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsJournal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences0976-48790975-74062024-12-0116Suppl 4S3212S321410.4103/jpbs.jpbs_707_24Comparative Analysis of Long-term Success Rates and Patient Satisfaction among Different Implant Placement Techniques for Implant-Supported Restorations: A Prospective Clinical TrialAkash MithranVishal B. ParmarMalav ShethMansiSoumalya BanerjeeMinu RajuObjective: This prospective clinical trial aimed to rigorously investigate and compare the long-term success rates of implant-supported restorations using various implant placement techniques, including conventional two-stage implant placement, immediate implant placement, and guided implant surgery. Methods: A total of 168 participants were randomly assigned to three groups. Comprehensive preoperative assessments, involving detailed medical and dental histories, thorough clinical examinations, and cone-beam computed tomography scans, were conducted. The implant placement techniques included conventional two-stage, immediate placement, and guided surgery. Primary outcomes included clinical and radiographic implant success, while secondary outcomes encompassed prosthetic success, complication rates, and patient-reported outcomes. Results: Baseline characteristics demonstrated no significant differences among the groups. Implant success rates at 6, 12, and 24 months were consistently high, with no statistically significant differences between conventional two-stage (96.4%, 94.0%, and 91.1%, respectively), immediate placement (94.7%, 92.1%, and 88.5%, respectively), and guided surgery (98.2%, 96.4%, and 93.8%, respectively) techniques (P > 0.05). Prosthetic complications, including crown misfit, abutment screw loosening, and esthetic issues, exhibited comparable rates across groups (P > 0.05). Patient satisfaction scores remained consistently high at 6, 12, and 24 months, with no statistically significant differences between conventional two-stage (8.2 ± 1.1, 8.5 ± 0.9, and 8.8 ± 0.8, respectively), immediate placement (8.4 ± 1.0, 8.8 ± 0.8, and 9.1 ± 0.7, respectively), and guided surgery (8.7 ± 0.9, 9.0 ± 0.7, and 9.3 ± 0.6, respectively) techniques (P > 0.05). Conclusion: This study provides robust evidence supporting the comparable success rates, low prosthetic complications, and high patient satisfaction associated with conventional two-stage, immediate placement, and guided surgery techniques for implant-supported restorations.https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_707_24dental implantsguided implant surgeryimmediate implantationimplant placement techniqueslong-term successtwo-stage implantation |
spellingShingle | Akash Mithran Vishal B. Parmar Malav Sheth Mansi Soumalya Banerjee Minu Raju Comparative Analysis of Long-term Success Rates and Patient Satisfaction among Different Implant Placement Techniques for Implant-Supported Restorations: A Prospective Clinical Trial Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences dental implants guided implant surgery immediate implantation implant placement techniques long-term success two-stage implantation |
title | Comparative Analysis of Long-term Success Rates and Patient Satisfaction among Different Implant Placement Techniques for Implant-Supported Restorations: A Prospective Clinical Trial |
title_full | Comparative Analysis of Long-term Success Rates and Patient Satisfaction among Different Implant Placement Techniques for Implant-Supported Restorations: A Prospective Clinical Trial |
title_fullStr | Comparative Analysis of Long-term Success Rates and Patient Satisfaction among Different Implant Placement Techniques for Implant-Supported Restorations: A Prospective Clinical Trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparative Analysis of Long-term Success Rates and Patient Satisfaction among Different Implant Placement Techniques for Implant-Supported Restorations: A Prospective Clinical Trial |
title_short | Comparative Analysis of Long-term Success Rates and Patient Satisfaction among Different Implant Placement Techniques for Implant-Supported Restorations: A Prospective Clinical Trial |
title_sort | comparative analysis of long term success rates and patient satisfaction among different implant placement techniques for implant supported restorations a prospective clinical trial |
topic | dental implants guided implant surgery immediate implantation implant placement techniques long-term success two-stage implantation |
url | https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_707_24 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT akashmithran comparativeanalysisoflongtermsuccessratesandpatientsatisfactionamongdifferentimplantplacementtechniquesforimplantsupportedrestorationsaprospectiveclinicaltrial AT vishalbparmar comparativeanalysisoflongtermsuccessratesandpatientsatisfactionamongdifferentimplantplacementtechniquesforimplantsupportedrestorationsaprospectiveclinicaltrial AT malavsheth comparativeanalysisoflongtermsuccessratesandpatientsatisfactionamongdifferentimplantplacementtechniquesforimplantsupportedrestorationsaprospectiveclinicaltrial AT mansi comparativeanalysisoflongtermsuccessratesandpatientsatisfactionamongdifferentimplantplacementtechniquesforimplantsupportedrestorationsaprospectiveclinicaltrial AT soumalyabanerjee comparativeanalysisoflongtermsuccessratesandpatientsatisfactionamongdifferentimplantplacementtechniquesforimplantsupportedrestorationsaprospectiveclinicaltrial AT minuraju comparativeanalysisoflongtermsuccessratesandpatientsatisfactionamongdifferentimplantplacementtechniquesforimplantsupportedrestorationsaprospectiveclinicaltrial |